House Republicans are pushing new legislation that could wipe out the ability of California and other states to ban or strictly limit the use of pesticides and toxic industrial chemicals that can jeopardize human health.

The measure, approved by a House committee Wednesday on a mostly party line vote, is the latest effort by the Republican-led Congress to block states from enacting environmental, public health or consumer protections that are more stringent than federal standards.

...the new bill, pushed by GOP lawmakers and backed by the White House, is actually an effort to undermine the ["Dirty Dozen" treaty] by creating new loopholes that would allow the chemical industry to keep producing and selling potentially toxic agents.

The bill could override a new California law to ban the use of brominated fire retardants, which are believed to have some of the same neurotoxic effects as PCBs and have been found in high concentrations in fish in the San Francisco Bay.

The measure could also thwart new restrictions passed last month by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to restrict the use of certain chemicals in plastic baby bottles, pacifiers and toys, after studies showed they could pose a health risk.

California officials say the bill is part of a broader push by Republicans to aid their allies in industry with weaker national standards on issues from food labeling to fuel efficiency to consumer financial privacy -- although some of the efforts have been blocked in the Senate.

Sponsors of the new bill say it is aimed at implementing the Stockholm Convention, an international treaty signed by 127 nations to ban some of the world's most dangerous chemicals -- called persistent organic pollutants, or POPs for short.

The treaty was first negotiated by President Bill Clinton and signed by President Bush in 2001, but it has yet to be ratified by Congress.

The treaty also is known as the "Dirty Dozen treaty" because it requires all signing countries to outlaw or severely restrict a dozen toxic chemicals -- such as DDT, dioxins, PCBs and the pesticide chlordane -- that can accumulate up the food chain and are linked to health effects including allergies, cancer, birth defects and damage to the immune and reproductive systems of humans and other species.

Bush endorsed the treaty at a Rose Garden ceremony in April 2001, saying, "We must work to eliminate or at least to severely restrict the release of these toxins without delay."

But environmentalists and public health advocates argue the new bill pushed by GOP lawmakers and backed by the White House is actually an effort to undermine the treaty by creating new loopholes that would allow the chemical industry to keep producing and selling potentially toxic agents.

The legislation would require the Environmental Protection Agency to use a cost-benefit standard when determining whether to ban chemicals in pesticides or industrial products. Critics claim the provision could delay the phasing out of toxins by forcing the agency to conduct economic analysis on whether new regulations are too onerous on the industry.

"These new criteria will expand the number of analyses required, delay regulatory action and provide many new opportunities to judicially challenge any EPA regulation of a future listed (toxic) chemical," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

On a party line vote Wednesday, the committee defeated an effort to replace the cost-benefit standard with a standard that focused solely on human health risks.

Democrats complained the new legislation was aimed at blocking state and local governments from enacting their own tough standards to ban or restrict the use of toxic chemicals. The bill is opposed by a dozen state attorneys general, including California's Bill Lockyer, as well as the American Nurses Association and more than 60 environmental and public health groups.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Paul Gillmor, R-Ohio, insisted that state and local governments would still have some authority under existing law to ban toxic chemicals or to petition the EPA to implement tougher restrictions.

But the bill's language makes clear the United States can only have a single national standard on new pollutants to meet the treaty's requirements, not a series of state standards.

Critics also complained the new legislation has no clear timetable to force EPA to act to regulate a new pollutant once it's been added to the treaty's list of banned substances.

"There's no requirement that EPA do anything after an international decision has been made to add a new (chemical) ... and no citizen participation process to challenge the EPA," said Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara.

But Republicans on the panel said the measure was carefully written to avoid giving too much power to environmental officials at the United Nations and foreign countries over regulations in the United States.

"Simply put, (the bill) protects U.S. sovereignty," said Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla.

The bill passed, 28-15, but it still faces several hurdles.

The House and Senate Agriculture committees must also approve bills to implement the treaty because it regulates pesticides. The Senate Energy and Public Works Committee has yet to take up any legislation related to the treaty.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee also sparred over a proposal to require manufacturers of antifreeze to use denatonium benzoate -- an extremely bitter substance that makes antifreeze unpalatable to drink. About 1,400 children and 10,000 animals are poisoned each year after drinking ethylene glycol, a toxic substance in antifreeze that has a sweet taste and smell that can be attractive to kids and pets.

But some Democrats argued the bill, despite its good intentions, may have unintended consequences. Denatonium benzoate does not biodegrade easily and some water agencies fear it could contaminate groundwater.

Critics said it would be irresponsible to pass the requirement and give broad legal immunity to antifreeze makers who use it without more research on the chemical's effects on human health.

But the bill's sponsors said the concerns were overblown, since the substance has been in widespread use in products since the 1960s. California, New Mexico and Oregon have passed laws requiring that a bittering agent be used in antifreeze, and other states are considering them. The bill passed by a 30-15 vote.

©2006 San Francisco Chronicle

###